6 ms·
Used it for a while in production along with Serilog, but ended up ditching it. LiteDB Studio is not as useful as it could be, and there were issues when access
by mrleinad 4y ago
Used it for a while in production along with Serilog, but ended up ditching it. LiteDB Studio is not as useful as it could be, and there were issues when accessing a shared database that I couldn't solve.
- fuzzy2 4y agoCould you please elaborate on the shared access issues? Is this about multiple processes using the same database? (I recently found LiteDB while researching log destinations.)
- randomname293 4y ago> Is this about multiple processes using the same database For me, yes. I experience a pretty large performance hit on shared vs direct mode. That being said, shared mode does seem to work with multiple processes; However, all processes must be on the same machine, as he uses a mutex around critical code. Or at least, he did last time I looked at the codebase. If your DB is on a network location and the processes are on different machines, bad things will happen. My experience is that LiteDB in direct mode is faster than SQLite, but in shared mode is slower.
- mrleinad 4y agoYes. Basically some processes failed to open the shared database.
- fodkodrasz 4y agoWhat was your problem with Serilog? Currently I'm using the `Microsoft.Extensions.Logging` in a project, and I feel that Serilog was far handier. I have only used Serilog for pet projects so far, but liked it really much, and have uses MS / Nlog and other "battle tested" solution is larger deployments so far. had some letdowns with those as well.
- mrleinad 4y agoSerilog wasn't the issue, I'm still using it. The problem was LiteDB not being able to open a database sometimes, and also reading those logs through LiteDB Studio was a PITA.